Why Clever And Lazy People Make The Best Leaders

From left: Kurt von
Hammerstein-Equord, Prince Eitel Friedrich of Prussia, Otto
Hasse, Erich Raeder. Erich von Manstein, one of the top
strategists in Hitler’s German Military, described Kurt Gebhard
Adolf Philipp Freiherr von Hammerstein-Equord, the former
Commander-in-Chief of the Reichswehr as “… probably one of the
cleverest people I ever met.”Wikimedia
Commons

“You’re looking for three things, generally, in a
person,” says Warren Buffett. “Intelligence, energy,
and integrity. And if they don’t have the last one, don’t even
bother with the first two.”

Ideally you want all three but people don’t always cooperate.
These qualities tend to be difficult to judge in hiring someone.

So we end up with all sorts of combinations and permutations in
organizations.

A lot of people feel that stupid people are the ‘worst’ problem.
(I’d argue that intelligent people without integrity are even
worse. They know the system, play politics well, and often end up
in grey areas.) With or without integrity, it’s easier to get rid
of an unintelligent person than an intelligent one.

Simplifying greatly (and removing integrity from the
equation), we end up with four combinations: stupid and
hard-working, stupid and lazy, intelligent and hard-working, and
intelligent and lazy.

So what happens with smart lazy people?

* * *

Erich von Manstein, one of the top strategists in Hitler’s German
Military, described Kurt Gebhard Adolf Philipp Freiherr von
Hammerstein-Equord, the former Commander-in-Chief of the
Reichswehr as “… probably one of the cleverest people I ever
met.*”

Both men, according to Ben Breen, are widely credited
with the following quote that gets to the heart of the matter.

I divide my officers into four groups. There are
clever, diligent, stupid, and lazy officers. Usually two
characteristics are combined. Some are clever and diligent —
their place is the General Staff. The next lot are stupid and
lazy — they make up 90 percent of every army and are suited to
routine duties. Anyone who is both clever and lazy is qualified
for the highest leadership duties, because he possesses the
intellectual clarity and the composure necessary for difficult
decisions. One must beware of anyone who is
stupid and diligent — he must not be entrusted with any
responsibility because he will always cause only mischief.

* * *

This actually makes quite a bit of sense to me.

Stupid and Lazy
You can accommodate unintelligent and lazy people by separating
work into chunks. We do this all the time by breaking jobs down
into routine tasks, creating policies and procedures that remove
any need of judgment.

(My guess is this happens eventually in every organization
because at some point the response to consistently poor judgement
calls is to create a bureaucratic process/policy that attempts to
remove that error.) It’s all very McDonald’s like and these
people tend to be easily replaceable.

Stupid and Energetic
von Hammerstein-Equord recognized these people cause “nothing but
mischief.” To him, they should be fired immediately. I tend to
agree. Despite good intentions, they often create more work for
others.

Intelligent and Energetic
You want these people around. I’m guessing that von
Hammerstein-Equord thought they’d be fit for middle management.
Which makes sense. I imagine he saw them as company men: safe,
reliable, rule following.

He likely saw them as people who didn’t challenge authority or
speak up. I think this is a bit of a leap; I know plenty of hard
working smart people who, occasionally, challenge authority. I
think this happens for a few reasons. Perhaps they’ve grown too
frustrated with what they see as absurdity. Or perhaps, and this
is more likely, they put away ambitions of climbing the corporate
ladder. (Depending on your organization, smart and unquestioning
can be the easiest way to a promotion.)

Intelligent and Lazy
An under-appreciated aspect of today’s workforce that von
Hammerstein-Equord thought fit to lead “because he possesses the
intellectual clarity and the composure necessary for difficult
decisions.”

These people can be challenging to work with. They delegate and
trust people to do their jobs. They don’t micromanage; they
question. They avoid unproductive things (think meetings, paper
shuffling, busy work). They don’t seek consensus because often
that means more work, not less. They focus on a few key
priorities. They don’t run around with solutions looking for
problems.

Often they have no desire to ‘move up’ in an organization. This
gives them the freedom to be different.

Maybe von Hammerstein-Equord was onto something.

Considering the framework above, it’s interesting to contemplate
the consequences of mismatching types and jobs.